Big Boys Hobbies

Todays Beach = Coins, Ring, and of course the Police!

ScubaDetective

ScubaDetective

In Memory Of
Forum Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
12,276
Location
Underwater with the fishes
Here we go again folks. STUPID laws. However a fantastic officer.

I am at a state park in Utah. 5500 foot above sea level where there was never a lake. So the state of Utah make a huge earth dam in a canyon to flood it and presto, they have a lake. Then they truck in tons and tons of sand to make a beach and pave the road and make some very nice shelters for tables and fire pits.

So I am at this beach that is still frozen and I am detecting. I get a few coins, pull tabs and a child's adjustable junk ring and I get a visit from the Utah DNR. (Division of Natural Resources). I am advised that it is illegal to detect the beach. I could find an Indian artifact! WHAT??? How deep do they think a detector can go?

We had a wonderful talk and he told me he wasn't going to be around the rest of the day. He told me to contact the office in SLC on Monday. He did agree with me. Any artifacts will be under the concrete or sand or water and there probably isn't any metal ones anyway. I did tell him if I came across an arrow head I would turn it in!

Pictures will show the beach, the dam and the picnic areas, and of course my Indian artifacts. (The spark plug top could be a trade bead!)













 
schmitzplumbing said:
they should have left the area as it originally was if they are so concerned about its past.:yes:
Click to expand...
X2 on this! That's a great argument.

I'm sure the "NO METAL DETECTING" isn't posted and it's some obscure park rule on the web that nobody's ever read.
 
I totally agree, they should have never touched the the land if they cared so much about the history. Make no sense at all.
 
schmitzplumbing said:
they should have left the area as it originally was if they are so concerned about its past.:yes:
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
Scuba, I had a similar experience with a park ranger here in California. I contacted the Director of Parks & Recreation, sent him pictures of the trash I was removing and got a "pass" to hunt. It wasn't a state park but it may still be worth a try. I also mentioned the nails, hooks, razor blades, knives, glass and other items I remove that otherwise might have ended up in someone's foot. :yes:
 
Nice Work Scubadee! Talking to that officer was right in your wheelhouse...Its a good skill for all of us to develop....Sooner or later.....
 
Compass said:
:thumbsup:
Scuba, I had a similar experience with a park ranger here in California. I contacted the Director of Parks & Recreation, sent him pictures of the trash I was removing and got a "pass" to hunt. It wasn't a state park but it may still be worth a try. I also mentioned the nails, hooks, razor blades, knives, glass and other items I remove that otherwise might have ended up in someone's foot. :yes:
Click to expand...

I did show him my finds and the trash. Him saying he wasn't going to be around the rest of the day and giving me the green light to stay and enjoy showed me he had a level head and I had no intent to break any law.

He was an officer with a brain and not like the officer I met in the Detroit River.
 
3.14R8 said:
You sure did pick a nice warm place to spend the winter Scuba. :-)
Stupid laws are everywhere!
Click to expand...

This is where 4 of my daughters live. I also am buying a house here for one of them and should close on the 27th of this month.

This is where I was a state cop and my wife is buried here. So I am traveling a lot and seeing people I knew a long time ago.
 
scuba, your posts are always a fun read.

As for the state of Utah state parks, I have a link that I can link, if you're interested. A very interesting "inside look" at the evolution of any such "no detecting" rule for their state parks. Ie.: the back-ground of how it came to be. A very revealing hint at how this particular state dreamed it up to add into their boiler plate verbiage.

It's a letter where ....way-back-when , when it was first decide, the letter clearly state that ".... the department receives many inquiries each year regarding the use of metal detectors. This memo will serve to clarify department policy on the matter", etc.... Something to this effect.

Which I found fascinating in the implications. Because it imlies that PRIOR to "all these FAQ's", apparently it was just silent on the matter ? Ie.: neither expressly allowing nor expressly forbidding ? Yet now, in-lieu of "all these pressing questions", they felt the need to implement a policy ?


A clear case of no-one-cared-till-you-asked. And apparently you're now on the receiving end of that. :roll:
 
Mud-puppy said:
Nice Work Scubadee! Talking to that officer was right in your wheelhouse...Its a good skill for all of us to develop....Sooner or later.....
Click to expand...


You know it is pretty easy to talk to an officer when you were one at one time. It is also VERY easy to talk to one when they treat you like you are an equal and not someone they feel they can push around.

There are some FANTASTIC officers out there that look for real criminals and are very polite to everyone else.

Then there are officers that are condescending and feel EVERYONE is subject to their authority like the one I met in the Detroit River.

The second kind I have and I will try to keep in their place within the boundaries of the law.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
scuba, your posts are always a fun read.

As for the state of Utah state parks, I have a link that I can link, if you're interested. A very interesting "inside look" at the evolution of any such "no detecting" rule for their state parks. Ie.: the back-ground of how it came to be. A very revealing hint at how this particular state dreamed it up to add into their boiler plate verbiage.

It's a letter where ....way-back-when , when it was first decide, the letter clearly state that ".... the department receives many inquiries each year regarding the use of metal detectors. This memo will serve to clarify department policy on the matter", etc.... Something to this effect.

Which I found fascinating in the implications. Because it imlies that PRIOR to "all these FAQ's", apparently it was just silent on the matter ? Ie.: neither expressly allowing nor expressly forbidding ? Yet now, in-lieu of "all these pressing questions", they felt the need to implement a policy ?


A clear case of no-one-cared-till-you-asked. And apparently you're now on the receiving end of that. :roll:
Click to expand...

I would love that link Tom. I do think I will find someone in the DNR office with a level head that will give me the green light. I am not touching ANYTHING that is not man made when they built this state park. There is absolutely no possible way an indian artifact could be remotely close to where I am playing at this beach. THANKS
 
ScubaDetector said:
I would love that link Tom. ....
Click to expand...

Here you go:

http://utrules.elaws.us/bulletin/10/15/2004/27442

Doesn't sound like it's totally forbidden. But just needs a "permit". But the part that I found so "telling", is that it gives a peek into their rationale for ever having decided to regulate it IN THE FIRST PLACE:

".... Parks receive numerous calls each year from people wanting to do metal detecting activities within the parks. The law is not specific enough that it addresses metal detecting ..... "

So .... gee, in-lieu of all these "numerous calls", and in-lieu of the law not being specific enough to address this "pressing issue", then ... gee LET'S JUST INVENT SOME LAWS . Hence here's a case example for anyone who doubts this evolution trail.

Good luck scuba !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

yandosan
Nevis Island
Replies
0
Views
104
yandosan
yandosan
LongJohnSilver1
Gold price
2
Replies
35
Views
713
diggin4clad
diggin4clad
L
Here is a Little Strange Ring for Ya
Replies
14
Views
402
KingTotsalot
KingTotsalot
LongJohnSilver1
Honk
2
Replies
21
Views
406
GroundSweeper
GroundSweeper
G
You tube rant
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
TampaBayBrad
T
Back
Top Bottom